Animal Welfare Bill - Standing Committee A

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Animal Welfare Bill

Clause 49 - Power to detain vessels, aircraft and hovercraft

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Ben Bradshaw: I was responding to a question from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) about hovercrafts when we broke. Apparently, hovercrafts are specifically referred to in the clause heading because they are not vessels, as they do not sit in the water but float on it. They are referred to later in the clause because, unlike ships under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, we need to refer to them so that we can make regulations that apply to them. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Scientific research

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hollobone: I speak on behalf of Bob Dillon, a prominent Labour party activist in Kettering. Rather than write to me, he chooses to correspond with me through the letter pages of the Kettering Evening Telegraph. This week, he urged me to table amendments to modify controls on laboratory research. Why would that not be appropriate? Do the Government have any plans to alter legislation on the subject?

Norman Baker: Good afternoon to you, Mr. Gale. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s point, because those of us who are concerned about animal welfare—I take that to be everyone in this room—are naturally concerned that the welfare of animals held for research purposes be properly considered, and that suffering be kept to a minimum within the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The relevant point is that that  Act was passed 20 years ago. We have since identified further measures to improve animal welfare and have more information about how that can be best delivered. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether any of the advances made in understanding those issues could be applied to the 1986 Act. I recognise the special position of that Act, but are there any plans to bring forward amendments to improve the lot of animals held for research purposes?

Ben Bradshaw: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, the reason why animals kept for scientific purposes are not included in the remit of the Bill is that they are dealt with under separate legislation, which is in turn informed by EU legislation. The EU directive is currently under review, and I would not want to pre-empt the outcome.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) can assure his Labour-voting constituent that the Government have tightened up procedures governing the way in which animals are held for scientific procedures. A lot of people do not realise that the cruelty offences in the Bill will also apply to animals kept for scientific procedures if that cruelty is outside the scope of the licence that applies to the animals concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Crown application

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in clause 54, page 28, line 41, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
Many of us who have been in this place for some time are interested in exemptions that apply to the Crown. I came across one this week, when a row of fantastic trees in Lewes was felled by Lewes prison on the basis of a Crown exemption. That would not have been allowed by anyone else, as the trees had an amenity value. I wish, if possible, to restrict Crown immunity. I admit that the clause sets out the terms that normally apply, but I particularly wanted to ask about subsections (6) and (7), which refer to the monarch in her private capacity. I am not quite clear why an exemption for private estates should be specifically written into the Bill. On all sorts of occasions, we have heard, and been given reasons why, things should not be written into Bills, and, here, we are talking not about estates held by the Crown—Buckingham palace, or whatever—but about private estates. Obviously, animals will be held on those estates, and we want to look after animals there as well as those anywhere else. I am interested to know what justification there can be for that inclusion.

Ben Bradshaw: Committee members may be interested to know, if they do not already, that the existing legislation—the Protection of Animals Act 1911—exempts all the Crown estate, including the sort  of premises to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred, such as prisons and anything that comes under what is commonly known as the Crown.
This Bill provides an exemption only for the Queen and her private estates. That is because the Queen cannot be criminally liable, because, under our unwritten constitution, she is the prosecutor. That does not mean that inspectors will not be able to gain access to her private estates when permission is given, just that they will not be able to demand it. There are also security considerations in respect of her private estate. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear such things in mind and withdraw his amendment.

Norman Baker: I am interested by the Minister’s response. I acknowledge our constitutional situation and the prosecution arrangements, but it would seem more equitable if the power of entry were the same for private estates owned by the monarch as for any other piece of land. The question of prosecution is separate from that.
I am particularly concerned because of the limitation at an earlier point on the power of entry. There is no restriction on the power of entry to the Prime Minister’s house or that of the head of MI5. Lots of people with good reason for restricting entry to their premises are covered by the Bill, but the monarch in her private capacity is not. I leave the Minister with that thought. I think it dangerous, inequitable and unfortunate to set up such exemptions in legislation.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Orders and regulations

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 55, page 29, line 6, after ‘orders’, insert ‘, codes’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 50, in clause 55, page 29, line 8, after ‘11’, insert
‘, or codes made under 13,’.
No. 51, in clause 55, page 29, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2)All—
(a)regulations,
(b)licensing and registration regimes, and
(c)codes of practice,
made under this Act shall only be made after the Secretary of State has presented them in the form of a draft statutory instrument which has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

Bill Wiggin: After that attack on Her Majesty’s corgis, we should move quickly on.

Roger Gale: Do not even begin to go down that road.

Bill Wiggin: I suspect that the hon. Member for Lewes is trying to protect the corgis, rather than attack them.
The three amendments are intended to harmonise procedure for enacting secondary legislation in the Bill, which has different procedures for the enactment of regulation, codes of practice and licensing and registration regimes. That may well be inconsistent. Many controversial and contentious matters could be included in secondary legislation, so it is important that there should be an onus to debate and approve matters positively rather than introducing some through the negative procedure.
Although I acknowledge that that may be a small burden on parliamentary time, I am conscious of the need to make sure that such regulations, codes of practice and licensing registration regimes are fair and effective. In addition, I believe that Parliament should scrutinise secondary legislation enacted for not only its content but its method. We have been through a lot of this debate before.
Given that the Government have already set themselves a target in the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment to introduce most of the required secondary legislation within the next few years, they might, in their haste, make mistakes, or they may not consult as fully or widely as we would want. The amendment would reduce the possibility of legislative short cuts, enhance the democratic accountability of the Government and strengthen our democracy.

Ben Bradshaw: We have already discussed whether codes should be made by affirmative or negative procedure. Amendment No. 49 would require the codes to be exercisable by statutory instrument. We believe that that is excessive because the codes are not legislation and therefore not capable of being statutory instruments within the meaning given to them by the 1946 Act. Amendment No. 50 would appear to result in two procedures for the approval of codes of practice—both the affirmative and negative. I assume that the intention was to make the code subject exclusively to the affirmative procedure. Amendment No. 51 would require that all delegated powers in the Bill be subject to affirmative resolution. That would include the issuing of codes, as well as the minor power under clause 49(6) to extend the power of detention or some modified form of it to hovercraft.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft or revised code, on which there must be full consultation, every time he or she proposes to issue a code. The draft will then be laid before Parliament, and either House may resolve not to approve it within 40 days, in which case it cannot proceed. Therefore, the procedure gives Parliament the final say as to whether codes should be adopted, but it is not as onerous or time consuming as a full affirmative procedure.
We believe that the procedure allows for the right level of scrutiny. As failure to comply with a code will not of itself constitute an offence, we believe that a higher form of scrutiny is not necessary. As I said the other day, we expect to introduce a large number of codes to cover the different species of animal covered  by the Bill, and they may be revised as science and society develop. If we bind ourselves to an affirmative procedure, that could create undue delay and possibly even prevent important changes to codes taking place quickly in the light of scientific evidence. Parliament will always be able to scrutinise a code if it wishes to do so, but it may not need to debate every code if it does not consider it appropriate.
On that basis I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: As the Minister said, clearly we would prefer positive statutory instruments, but, as we need to make progress this afternoon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - General interpretation

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 56, page 29, line 32, at end insert
‘“sale” includes hire, barter and exchange, and related expressions shall be construed accordingly.’.
The amendment is intended to tidy up the Bill, many parts of which relate directly or indirectly to the sale of animals. Either through the activities that will be subject to licensing and registration under the clause or through the disposal of an animal detailed in the part of the Bill dealing with post-conviction powers, the Bill will have implications for the sale of animals and, as such, should include a definition. The definition provided by the amendment is consistent with the definition of “sale” in other legislation, including section 27 of the CITES licensing and bird registration under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and section 14 of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The amendment would include hire, barter and exchange in the definition of sale.
I hope that the Minister will accept this minor amendment, as it brings the Bill in line with other legislation.

Ben Bradshaw: Clause 9 aims to protect animal welfare by prohibiting commercial and private vending to children under 16. We are not aware of any compelling reason to ban the hiring of animals to children. To the extent that there is a market for that, it is rather limited and already regulated. Riding schools, for example, which hire out ponies or horses to children, are subject to licensing requirements and will continue to be so under the Bill.
We believe that the case for regulating the exchange and barter of animals in transactions involving or taking place among children is also extremely weak. If two children aged 14 swap a hamster and a gerbil, why should they be criminalised? Does it make a difference if an 18-year-old barters his guinea pig for a 14-year-old’s two mice? To the extent that the animals being exchanged are a species that may be legally exchanged,  they are transactions in which the Bill should not interfere. In all those cases, the animals are protected by the welfare and cruelty offences.
The hon. Gentleman said that in other pieces of legislation it is necessary to protect a particular species or type of animal. The law already bans, as he said, the bartering and exchange of badgers or live wild birds. The reasons for those bans are the conservation and protection of the animals concerned—the hon. Gentleman mentioned CITES—but we see no need to extend them universally. The definition of “sale” in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 is not appropriate to the Bill.
In the second set of circumstances to which I have referred, the Bill grants the courts the power to sell animals that have been taken into possession because they are in distress, animals whose owners have been deprived of the right to own them or animals in relation to which a disqualification order has been breached. In all those cases, the courts have a discretion to dispose of the animals in accordance with the provisions in the Bill. It is highly unlikely that a court would seek to hire out the animals, and the possibility of exchanging or bartering such animals simply does not arise. Why would a court engage itself in such transactions? Therefore, we believe that the definition is inappropriate in the context of the Bill and I urge the hon. Gentleman to seek to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: I should just like to make a couple of points. I accept that perhaps the drafting is not quite right. I also accept the Minister’s argument on hiring a pony, for example, because if you hire one it is presumably under the protection of its owner. However, although I hate to say this, swapping two mice for a guinea pig is not altogether such a minor thing. My dear mother, for example, hates mice, and my returning home, as I often wanted to, clutching my new pet mouse, would not have been met with the same affection as my returning with a guinea pig. We are in the same sphere as when a small child, or even a large child, buys a pet—

Norman Baker: Or wins it at a fair.

Bill Wiggin: Indeed. It is wrong to exclude part-exchange if there is a significant change in terms of responsibility. If people can swap their animals, other than animal for animal, they are essentially getting round the part of the Bill that prevents children from buying animals. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I recognise that the amendment is, perhaps, not drafted correctly. I accept that and I am happy to withdraw. However, it is odd that animals that are protected in the way that badgers or very rare animals are protected are excluded.

Norman Baker: One of my concerns, which the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, is the possibility that those who wish to engage in sales, but are aware of the legal restrictions that properly apply to sales, may seek to construct another arrangement taking the place of  a sale, but with the same effect. For example, people did not used to be able to charge for entrance to sporting events on Sunday, so they would charge for the programme. People are inventive in getting round rules. It is possible, under the Bill, for someone to hire something for an extended period, which is effectively a sale.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why I tabled the amendment, although it is possible that we have not drafted it quite correctly. The spirit of the Bill says that people cannot acquire animals. How they get round the definition of “sale” is a problem. The Minister may tell us that, for a court case, the definition would include barter or exchange. I doubt that the hamsters-for-mice scandal that may hit the press at any stage will ever get to court, but the principle behind the Bill is affected by this matter.
Although it is odd that this matter has been missed out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: We now come to amendment No. 206. The issue relating to suffering was fairly extensively debated under clause 4. Ordinarily, this amendment would have been grouped with the amendments relating to clause 4, but it was tabled after that debate took place, which is why it is being called now. It is entirely proper that a debate takes place on the amendment now, but it would not be proper for it to be extensive or repetitive.

Paddy Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 56, page 29, line 32, at end insert—
‘“suffering” is not confined to physical suffering;’.
I shall take your words to heart, Mr. Gale. The amendment was tabled in light of the comments made by the Minister during our earlier discussion about suffering, which, as you rightly say, ranged widely. Many hon. Members were keen to see mental suffering dealt with in the Bill. The Minister told us that such an amendment was not necessary, but he said, on the suggestion that there should be an amendment to clause 56:
“I will think carefully about that suggestion.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 January 2006; c. 34.]
I hope that the Minister has had a chance to think about that and will respond positively.

Ben Bradshaw: As Committee members will remember, when we met on 17 January, I indicated that we would consider carefully the suggestion that we needed to do something in relation to the definition of suffering. We have some slight difficulty with the drafting of my hon. Friend’s amendment, because it seems to suggest that suffering never consists only of physical suffering, whereas it might, in some cases, and we would not want to create that loophole.
If my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw the amendment, I will consider the matter further and table an amendment on Report.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the Minister’s very generous comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 56, page 29, line 40, leave out from ‘dwelling’ to end of line 42 and insert
‘are to a part which is wholly or mainly occupied as a private dwelling.’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 44, in clause 56, page 29, line 41, leave out ‘yard, garden’.
No. 54, in clause 56, page 29, line 42, at end insert
‘except insofar as any yard or outhouse may contain an animal to which section 17(1) may refer.’.

Bill Wiggin: Groundhog day hits us again, because here we are, talking about dwellings; the Minister helpfully clarified the part about private dwellings earlier. Clause 56 does not specify what is meant by a private dwelling, and the explanatory notes are of little help. Moreover, the Government have made no changes to it, despite the criticisms made by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. The Government may seek to make those changes later, although consequently I believe that it is necessary to amend the clause accordingly to prevent confusion from arising over the powers of entry once the Bill is enacted.
It is important that constables and inspectors know what they can and cannot enter, especially when an animal is in distress. An outhouse or a yard could be deemed to be a private dwelling. I believe that the Minister has said before that if someone has turned their garage into a stable, they can no longer expect it to be considered a private dwelling. It is not clear, however, whether there would be some dispute about that if someone had left a pushchair, a load of children’s toys and various other household items in the garage as well. If the Minister can throw some light on the matter and we can tidy it up, that is all well and good.

Paddy Tipping: I do not want to push my luck with the Minister, but we have made some progress, and we had a good discussion about the notion of a private dwelling when we last considered the matter. Since then, the RSPCA has examined the cases that it has brought. It remains concerned about the notion of a private dwelling and will provide the Minister and his team with some statistical information. I urge the Minister to keep his mind open about this point.

Norman Baker: I speak to amendment No. 44 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland), which offers a halfway house between what the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) suggests and the Government’s stated position so far, although I must say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s presentation.
My hon. Friend and I tabled the amendment to delete the words “yard, garden” because there is a clear difference between something that is visible and something that is not. The contents of a garage or an outhouse are not visible, so the occupier of a house could construe a garage or an outhouse as a private dwelling, whereas a yard or a garden, even a backyard, as the Minister suggested on the other occasion, is much more likely to be treated as an open space, albeit a private one. It is very common for such yards and gardens to be visible, at least from outside the property, to those who pass by and to the neighbours of that property.
It is difficult to believe that one cannot use the powers of entry in clauses 16 and 17 if one sees, from a public place, an animal in distress in the yard or garden. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind that one probably cannot see an animal in distress if it is in a garage or an outhouse. I do not believe that privacy is infringed in the same way at all if a person enters someone else’s yard or garden for those purposes as it would be if they entered someone’s garage or outhouse, or even their house itself—that is in a different category altogether. One has a right to expect the garage, outhouse or house to be private. They will probably be locked, and access will be denied in that way. Yards and gardens will not be locked in that way, and there is a strong case for deleting those two words.

Greg Mulholland: An example that brings that point home is the situation in which a postman or a door-to-door salesman could enter a front garden perfectly legally, but under the Bill an animal welfare inspector could not enter the same garden without a warrant.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. It would not be appropriate for a postman, a travelling salesman or a political canvasser to invade someone’s outhouse or garage, but it is perfectly acceptable for them to go into the front garden so that they can knock on the front door. It would be helpful if the Government looked again at excluding yards and gardens. That would go some way towards meeting people’s genuine concerns about the clause on the grounds of animal welfare.

Ben Bradshaw: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said about the new statistics that the RSPCA is compiling; I shall certainly look closely at them.
At this stage, I am not convinced that we have got the balance wrong. Speaking for myself—maybe I am unusual—I am not sure that in determining my private space, I would make a strong distinction between my small back garden, which I have to go through the house to get to, the shed at the end of the garden and a garage. I do not have a garage, because I do not have a big enough house, but I am not sure that most people make that sort of distinction between enclosed spaces and enclosed gardens. It could be argued that if a space  is enclosed, it is more worrisome that something a bit dodgy might be going on inside, which one would want to do something about.
As I said earlier, in extreme cases, in which enforcement officers see that an animal is about to die, they may use powers of entry and intervention. It is not such a big deal to get a warrant in less serious cases.

Greg Mulholland: Although I accept that the sort of private, enclosed back garden the Minister is talking about is distinct, could we not look at the wording again and perhaps omit the blanket definition of “garden”? I accept what he says about enclosed private space, but could we look at the clause again to avoid the patently ludicrous situation that I referred to?

Ben Bradshaw: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the point that the hon. Member for Lewes made about access to front gardens by postmen, newspaper boys and so on, I understand that such delivery people have an implied licence only to deliver the post and not to do anything else. I do not think that there is a parallel. As I said earlier, the definition makes it quite clear that for such outhouses, sheds or garages to constitute a private dwelling, they would have to be used primarily in connection with activities happening in a private dwelling. If they were used just to store things or to keep animals in, they would lose that qualification.
I accept that it is difficult to define such things. I do not wish to make the powers of entry associated with violations in the Bill more permissive than powers associated under existing laws with other, much more serious crimes, and I do not think that other Committee members want to do so either.
Norman Bakerrose—

Roger Gale: I call Mr. Baker.

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Could you clarify whether I am summing up or the Minister is giving way?

Roger Gale: For the sake of convenience, I am construing it that the Minister has given way.

Norman Baker: I am sorry to come back to a point that I made during debate on an earlier clause, but the Minister said then that it will be possible for outhouses and garages not to be construed as private dwellings if they are not being used for that purpose, and that implies that the Bill, in general terms, will apply in those situations. However, the point that I made to the Minister earlier, to which I did not hear him respond, was that yards and gardens are invariably regarded as private property and part of the dwelling. It is therefore academic to suggest—

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker: I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister.
It is academic to suggest that an outhouse might not be part of a private dwelling when it is always necessary to have access through a private dwelling,  namely the yard or garden—words that my amendment would remove from the clause—to get to the outhouse. What the Minister said is no comfort.

Ben Bradshaw: I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) as well, if she wants to intervene.

Shona McIsaac: We are getting our knickers in a bit of a twist over the issue. Many of the new housing developments in my constituency are open-plan, which creates problems of definition. Such estates have no front gardens as we would normally define them; they are completely open-plan. We might inadvertently cause problems for such areas by being prescriptive in our definitions. Does the Minister agree?

Ben Bradshaw: I agree. We could spend the rest of the afternoon talking about the layout of various types of house and garden.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 56, page 30, line 21, at end add—
‘(7)Any power conferred by this Act (or by an order of a court under this Act) to destroy an animal is a power to destroy the animal in an appropriate and humane manner.’.
The amendment makes an important point. We seek to ensure that, in the unfortunate event of an animal needing to be put to sleep, the act will be performed with dignity and in a manner that does not cause further undue suffering. There is no explicit reference in the Bill, as drafted, to the methods that could be used to put an animal to sleep. Clauses 33 and 34 use only terminology such as
“Destruction in the interests of the animal”.
The RSPCA alerted me to situations in which shovels or bricks were used for the purposes of destroying an animal—not a horse, I hope. We do not want that to continue when the Bill is enacted. I would feel more comfortable if the terminology used in the appropriate clause, and applying throughout the Bill, was more explicit in stating that when an animal has to be put to sleep, it should be done in an appropriate and humane manner.

Norman Baker: I have some sympathy with the amendment, but the Minister might argue—I am sorry to anticipate him—that the general cruelty provisions cover the point.
There is a difference with destruction, however, which is why it might be helpful for the Bill to be more specific. When one is confronted, sadly, with an animal that needs to be destroyed, there might not be much time to consider matters. That person, therefore, might resort to crude methods—perhaps for the best of reasons—such as those that the hon. Member for Leominster described. However, with more time for consideration, one might not pursue that course of  action. Relying on the general cruelty provisions in the Bill might not be sufficient, so it would do no harm to agree to the amendment.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right: the Government’s view is that any unnecessary or inhumane destruction of animals would be caught by clause 4 as a cruelty offence. Although we understand and sympathise with the motives behind the amendment, we do not think that the Bill will authorise inhumane destruction. It goes without saying that destruction must be carried out in an appropriate and humane manner.
In most cases, we are talking about officially sanctioned destruction, but let us cast our minds back to the debate about a car driver who runs over an animal and is then faced with a dilemma. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leominster would want the Bill to catch such people, but that would happen if the amendment were passed. That would make it harder for the driver to decide whether to deal with the animal humanely or to let it suffer for a perhaps considerable period.

Bill Wiggin: I do not think that we want the driver to reverse over the animal and finish the job, and that is why the provisions should include the word “humane”. The amendment would emphasise that key point. We are dealing with a difficult subject. The Government’s intention is that any destruction should be done humanely to prevent further suffering. We do not need to take the debate further, but they might wish to reconsider and include the word “humane”. That would send the right signal to anyone reading the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment proposed: No. 141, in schedule 3, page 39, line 28, at beginning insert—
‘(1)Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 (pets not to be sold in streets etc.) ceases to have effect.’.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 142 and 144.

Shona McIsaac: Although the Minister has moved the amendments formally, I have some concerns about them and wish to pose some questions to him. On my reading, a repeal of the Pet Animals Act 1951 could create a problem by removing the restriction on
“selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market”.
If the amendments’ intention is that that repeal will not take place until regulations on the sale of animals have been introduced, the Minister needs to make that clear today.

Ben Bradshaw: I am happy to confirm that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 142, in schedule 3, page 39, line 28, leave out ‘the Pet Animals Act 1951’ and insert ‘that Act’.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 189, in schedule 3, page 42, line 9, at end insert
‘Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (c. 11) 13AIn section 8 of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (Sale of dogs)— (a)in subsection (1)(c), for “to the keeper of a licensed pet shop” substitute “at a licensed breeding establishment”; (b)in subsection (2)(c), for “to the keeper of a licensed pet shop” substitute “at a licensed breeding establishment or a licensed Scottish rearing establishment”.’.
13AIn section 8 of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (Sale of dogs)—
(a)in subsection (1)(c), for “to the keeper of a licensed pet shop” substitute “at a licensed breeding establishment”;

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Sale of dogs—
‘(1)A person commits an offence if he exposes, offers or displays for sale or supply or sells or supplies a dog in the course of a business at premises other than—
(a)a dwelling;
(b)a licensed breeding establishment or a licensed Scottish rearing establishment within the meaning of section 8 of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 (sale of dogs).
(2)A person commits an offence if in the course of a business he sells a dog which is less than eight weeks old.’.

Bill Wiggin: Amendment No. 189 would ensure that puppies of less than eight weeks old could not be sold to pet shops. To promote the welfare of dogs effectively, as the Bill is designed to do, we need to amend the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 to guarantee that puppies aged less than eight weeks are supported in breeding establishments where their welfare needs can be better administered than in a pet shop. In their first eight weeks puppies need extra support. They need to be kept warm, they can sleep for 90 per cent. of the time and their movements are weak. It is not until the age of about eight weeks that they begin to exhibit the full range of characteristics of an adult of their breed. At that age, a puppy can begin to be house trained and groomed and can understand feeding regimes. It is only at about that time that it is appropriate for a puppy to be separated from the specialist care that it needs. The amendment would reinforce that point in law.
The subject of puppy farms was missed in the Bill, which is a great shame. Although a lot of work is being done to stop the mass production of puppies, we could have tackled the issue effectively in the Bill. We have missed that chance, but I hope that the amendment will go some way towards stopping pet shops selling puppies of less than eight weeks.

David Drew: I apologise for arriving late; I wished to be called in the Chamber on the Afghanistan statement.
New clause 12 fits in reasonably well with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster. I wish to probe the Government on their position on this largely unexplored issue. Some  investigation is needed, if not greater regulation. I know that regulation already applies to the area in question, but we need to know a bit more about how puppies are weaned in pet shops and other establishments, and about when they are taken away and other transportation issues. On those matters, I hope that the Government will clearly state that they will introduce either a code of practice or, more particularly, secondary legislation. For reasons that we know about, they are not keen to address the issue in the Bill.
It is likewise vital that we find out what information is available to those who wish to make purchases. Most people who take on a puppy for the first time would admit their ignorance of the rudimentary hygiene and care measures to be adhered to. It is vital that commercial owners trading in pet animals are apprised of the need to give information to their customers. I know that that is mentioned in annexe E of the regulatory impact assessment, but it should be laid down as a vital requirement.
There are those such as the Kennel Club who are willing to engage in a partnership so that appropriate information is brought forward and so that DEFRA does not have to do it alone. I hope that can be done in a spirit of partnership. I hope that new clause 12 helps to achieve that, and that the Government will look at it seriously, even though they will not want the clause pressed at this stage.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend and his new clause 12. We accept that the legislation on breeding and sale of dogs is long overdue for an overhaul, and we shall prepare and consult on new regulations after evaluation of the accredited breeder scheme set up by the Kennel Club. It would be premature to speculate on the impact of any new regulations on the breeding and sale of dogs through pet shops, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take on board the fact that the Government are thinking carefully about it, and we intend to proceed as I outlined. On that basis, I urge him not to press his new clause.
I turn to amendment No. 189, tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the sale of under-age puppies is already illegal under existing legislation, and will remain so under the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: Good. That is a very positive start to what I was seeking to achieve. There is quite a lot of merit in what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has suggested in his new clause. I, too, want the accredited breeder scheme to succeed; I am worried that there will be people who seek to bypass it. However, having put those comments on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 - Repeals

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in clause 59, page 30, line 32, after ‘repealed’, insert ‘or revoked’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 132, in schedule 4, page 42, line 27, at end insert—
‘(1)Enactments’. No. 133, in schedule 4, page 43, line 37, at end add— ‘(2)Instruments  Title and NumberExtent of revocation   Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/731)In paragraph 11 of Schedule 3, the words from “, except that” to “hindquarters”.
No. 133, in schedule 4, page 43, line 37, at end add—

Bill Wiggin: The amendments seek to tidy up the Bill and extend welfare provisions to animals awaiting slaughter. They also probe the Government to indicate whether they have been seeking other forms of animal control in abattoirs. Schedule 3, paragraph 11 of the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 permits electric shocks of less than two seconds to animals’ hindquarters. Schedule 4, paragraph 8(c) exempts the use of such shocks from being criminalised.
Although I appreciate the need to control animals in abattoirs, I have been made aware that the persistent and excessive use of electric shocks can be harmful to the animal beyond the purposes for which the shock was administered. Moreover, when an animal in a slaughterhouse is stunned or incapacitated, that could be argued to fall within the welfare provisions of the Bill. The amendment is drafted with the intention of erring on the side of caution. Will the Minister state the Government’s position?

Ben Bradshaw: The amendment is drafted in such a way as to, in effect, ban the use of electric goads in slaughterhouses. We can amend secondary legislation from time to time. As the hon. Gentleman will know the statutory instrument in question derives from European directives concerning welfare at slaughter. It will be changed in a year’s time, from 5 January 2007, when there will be a new regulation in force which will provide that
“Animals must be moved with care. Passageways must be so constructed as to minimise the risk of injury to animals, and so arranged as to exploit their gregarious tendencies. Instruments intended for guiding animals must be used solely for that purpose, and only for short periods. The use of instruments which administer electric shocks shall be avoided as far as possible. In any case these instruments shall be used only for adult bovine animals and adult pigs which refuse to move, and only when they have room ahead of them in which to move. Shocks shall last no longer than one second, be adequately spaced, and shall be applied only to the muscles of the hindquarters. Shocks shall not be used repeatedly if the animal fails to respond.”
Under the terms of the regulation, we shall be able to implement stricter measures in the interests of welfare. However, we are not persuaded that an absolute ban  is appropriate. The independent Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Humane Slaughter Association agree that there are circumstances in which using a goad is necessary. In our last major consultation on the subject, which was only in 2003, the view—endorsed by the Health and Safety Executive—was that use of a goad as a last resort is preferable in safety terms to workers moving in the raceways trying to compel an animal to move forward by other means. Furthermore, abolishing goads could lead to welfare problems caused by delays in the line, and could see individuals resorting to other, welfare-unfriendly means to try to move animals—perhaps even tail twisting or the use of pointed sticks.
In the light of the evidence from all those groups, we believe that goads should continue to be allowed to be used in a very limited range of circumstances, and that the on-site vet should intervene if one is being used inappropriately. We are working on a revised red meat code of practice for slaughterhouses, which will include detailed guidance on using goads only in exceptional circumstances. I hope, on the basis of those reassurances, that the hon. Member for Leominster will withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: As I am entertaining the Committee this afternoon, let me say that it is not a secret that I have cattle, and looking after cattle is a bit like a cross between animal welfare and heavy furniture removal. When a stubborn cow does not want to move, it is extremely difficult to get her to move.
I am happy that the Government have considered what is in the spirit of the amendment, reducing the shocks from two seconds’ duration to one second. The point about moving adult bovines and adult pigs is valid; it is not as safe or easy as people perhaps imagine. I am content that the Government have taken the steps that I wanted, and I was content to table the amendment to make that happen. I am happy with what the Minister has said, and I am more than happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Repeals

Amendment proposed: No. 143, in schedule 4, page 43, line 2, column (2), leave out ‘“docking”’ and insert ‘“nicking”’.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Norman Baker: We are all keen to make progress, but a couple of lines from the Minister explaining exactly why the amendment is necessary and what it means would be helpful.

Ben Bradshaw: The amendment corrects a drafting mistake. Section 1 of the Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949, which prohibits docking and nicking of horses, will be superfluous following the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act and the  associated mutilations regulation. It is therefore listed to be repealed in schedule 4. Section 3 of the 1949 Act defines the terms “docking” and “nicking”. With the repeal of section 1, the term “nicking” will no longer appear in the Act. However, the term “docking” will still be in section 2 and therefore should not be deleted from the definitions in the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made:No. 144, in schedule 4, page 43, line 4, column (2), leave out ‘Section’ and insert ‘Sections 2 and’.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Philip Hollobone: I beg to move amendment No. 213, in schedule 4, page 43, line 15, at end insert
  ‘Animal Boarding Establishments Act
Clause 11(8)(c) gives the national authority the power by regulations to repeal section 1(1) of the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963, which states:
“No person shall keep a boarding establishment for animals except under the authority of a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
The term “animal” is interpreted later in the Act as “any dog or cat”. The change through clause 11(8)(c) will, in effect, discard a statute that has existed for more than 40 years, yet will preclude Parliament from amending any regulation on the subject placed before it. That raises the general point, already discussed in Committee, about the wisdom of allowing major changes to be effected by regulation. I tabled the amendment, which would repeal section 5(1)(a) of the current legislation, to try to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to consider the substance of that section before it is subsumed in any regulation.
Under the 1963 Act, any boarding establishment for dogs or cats requires a licence, except that
“a person shall not be deemed to keep a boarding establishment for animals by reason only of his providing accommodation for other people’s ... in connection with a business of which the provision of such accommodation is not the main activity”.
Some 40-plus years on, our view on the needs of animals has shifted and, in those circumstances, the organisation of human affairs does not change the safeguards necessary for the animal. It is reasonable to ensure the same standard of care for a boarded cat or dog by a licence, whatever the nature of the business concerned.

Ben Bradshaw: I do not feel that I should engage in a debate with the hon. Gentleman on the issue. Our essential difference is that the Government do not think that the proposal merits inclusion in the Bill. The amendment would repeal part of an Act that the Bill will repeal anyway, so its effect would be null and void. It is far better that we should discuss boarding establishments for cats, dogs or greyhounds in respect of secondary legislation, which is the whole point of enabling legislation.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 60 - Transition

Amendment made: No. 140, in clause 60, page 30, line 35, leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Commencement

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 62, page 32, line 5, after ‘appoint’, insert
‘within 3 years following the passage of this Act’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 46, in clause 62, page 32, line 8, at end insert
‘within 3 years following the passage of this Act’.

Norman Baker: This comes back to the issue that we have touched upon on some occasions and skirted around on others, namely the extent to which the Bill is an enabling Bill; indeed, the matter was referred to in the previous exchange. To what extent can we expect the Government’s promises to be delivered and within what time scale?
I hope that the Minister will accept that Members in all parts of the Committee have taken him on trust when he has promised to do certain things that we all want. In exchange for that we have provided the Government with powers. However, as part of that exchange there has been no guarantee—nor perhaps could there be with an enabling Bill—that those powers will be introduced.
Clause 62 states that only three clauses will come into effect on day one. They are clause 55, which just says that Ministers can do something, clause 61, which just specifies the extent of their powers, and clause 63, which gives the title—it is good to the know that the Bill has a title, but there nothing else in clause 63. Nothing in the rest of clause 62 specifies a date or a time scale for any of the secondary legislation by which we all set so much store and which might otherwise not be introduced.
As hon. Members will know from previous legislation, there is a litany of cases down the ages in which promises about secondary legislation have been made as part of enabling legislation, but that secondary legislation has not appeared. The first Act that I remember working on as a researcher was the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There are  provisions in that Act which have still not been introduced 16 years on, even though there was cross-party agreement on them.
The Bill contains an enabling power, and the Minister is on record as saying that those powers will be introduced through secondary legislation, but that does not guarantee that those powers will be introduced. Suppose, for example, that the Government have a change of philosophy, that the Minister changes and the new Ministers takes a different view, or that there is a change of Government. All sort of things can happen to derail the process on which we have all agreed so far.
As a quid pro quo, in exchange for our agreeing to significant enabling powers, the Minister ought to be prepared to specify something in the way of an enactment date for those powers. I fully accept that the regulatory impact assessment sets out a timetable for regulations and codes. It goes up to 2010, with performing animals as the last entry. Of course, the Minister will readily recognise that that is not legally binding and therefore, in a sense, is no more of a guarantee than his words. I do not wish to be pejorative or insulting. I am just saying that the timetable is not a legal guarantee, any more than what is said in this room. There is no guarantee that things will follow on. The Minister will know that the EFRA Committee and others have raised considerable concerns about the use of secondary powers. If we are to rely heavily on those secondary powers, at the very least we need some guarantee as to when they will come in.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West, would set a time scale by inserting the phrase
“within 3 years following the passage of this Act”.
That would give us some guarantee of when the powers would come in. The Minister may say that that is unrealistic and it will take five years to deal with performing animals, or whatever amount of time he has set out in the regulatory impact assessment. That is fair enough. If he wants to say that it will take five years, or even eight years, that is fine, but we want an assurance that all the good work that we have done on the Bill—we are now coming to the end of it—will be put into practice and that all the things that we have agreed should happen will actually happen. One way of achieving that is to include in the Bill some sort of requirement that it occurs. If the Minister is committed to animal welfare, as I know he is, it is in his interests to ensure that that happens, rather than see the good work that he has done disappear off into the distance.

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of Committee members to the tension that we have touched on throughout the proceedings between our desire to introduce the laws and our desire to ensure that there is proper scrutiny and consultation. Will he reflect on that? In a moment, I think that we will be pressurised to commit ourselves to deal with greyhounds earlier than we currently plan to do. Not only is there a capacity issue in terms of my  hard-pressed civil servants getting the codes and draft regulations drafted, there is also the question of parliamentary time, if some of these matters need to be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure.
 The hon. Gentleman has written to me about the regulatory impact assessment. I do not know whether he has a copy of my letter. Basically, I have replied in the affirmative and said that we still intend to stick to the timetable laid down in the RIA. The impact of his amendment would be that, if commencement orders had not been made within three years of Royal Assent, they could not be brought into force at all. I do not think that he would want that to happen.
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some more assurances about our intentions. The clause follows standard practice. Only the barest provisions—those that enable us to bring the other provisions into force—will come into force on Royal Assent. All the others will come in by commencement orders. In England, the Government have committed themselves, as part of their better regulation agenda, to bring regulations and orders into force on common commencement dates. Those dates are 1 October and 6 April. Although much depends on the speed with which the Bill completes its parliamentary stages and is submitted for Royal Assent, it is my strong hope that we will be able to commence the main provisions of the Bill in England in October.
In some cases, a slower timetable may be necessary. To cite one example, in clause 5 the provision to ban mutilations must clearly be brought into force at the same time as the regulation that specifies the exemptions to the ban. However, we have given various commitments—some in the Bill—not to introduce regulations without a full public consultation. Those consultations take time. A 12-week period is prescribed in the Government’s code of practice on consultations. There is a complex relationship between the date of Royal Assent and common commencement dates, and between the Bill’s statutory provisions and its regulation-making powers.
We certainly intend to bring the Bill’s provisions into force within three years. We set out that timetable in the RIA that I sent to you, Mr. Gale, your co-Chair, Mrs. Humble, and all members of the Committee. As I say, it is our intention to stick to it. I hope that, in light of those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for confirming his intentions, which is useful. It is particularly useful to have him on record as remaining committed to the timetable of the regulatory impact assessment. I suspect that that is as much as we can get out of him, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Norman Baker: I hate to be pedantic, but as we are in 2006, should it not be the Animal Welfare Act 2006?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. In the published version of the Bill the year is given as 2005. That will be updated automatically in subsequent prints of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Statutory improvement notices

‘(1)Prior to any prosecutions taking place under section 8, the appropriate authority shall issue a person violating section 8 with a Statutory Improvement Notice which shall state the reasons for the issuing of such a notice and suggestions on how to fulfil the requirements of the notice.
(2)The Statutory Improvement Notice issued under subsection (1) shall require the person to which it is issued to make appropriate changes to ensure the welfare of animals which are in their care.
(3)Under subsection (1), the “appropriate authority” includes—
(a)local authorities,
(b)the police,
(c)the State Veterinary Service, and
(d)the courts.
(4)Under subsection (1), the “appropriate authority” does not include—
(a)private individuals,
(b)government agencies (except the State Veterinary Service),
(c)non-governmental organisations, and
(d)registered charities.
(5)Statutory improvement notices issued under subsection (1) can only be valid for a term not exceeding 51 weeks after the date of issue.
(6)Having issued a statutory improvement notice to a person under subsection (1), the appropriate authority under subsection (3) must offer that person reasonable help in meeting the requirements of that notice.
(7)Nothing in this section prejudices persons or organisations not mentioned in subsection (3) from offering advice to others regarding animal welfare.
(8)Persons issued with a statutory improvement notice under subsection (1) will have 28 days to accept the notice or risk being prosecuted.’. —[Bill Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is part of the proceedings that you will want to know from me, Mr. Gale, whether we will vote on new clause 5. For a brief moment, before speaking to new clause 3, I want to remind the Committee that on the afternoon of Thursday 19 January the Minister said:
“On the possession of a recording”—
that is the recording of an animal fight in particular —
“I outlined to the Committee some of the difficulties of criminalising the mere possession of an image, given that the possession of far more serious images is currently not criminalised.  I will reconsider whether it would be possible to tie that possession to an event that had taken place in this country. The difficulty of proving that was why this provision was dropped from the draft Bill.”
However, the Minister said that he would reflect
“in discussions with others, on whether it would be possible to make changes that would reassure hon. Members.”— [Official Report, Standing CommitteeA, 19 January 2006; c. 120–1.]
I hope that that is still the case. If he will just say yes, we can proceed, and we will not need to vote on new clause 5, which I think will be helpful to the Committee. I know that the Minister wanted to consider the possession of videos and films of fighting, and I am sure that he still does, as he mentioned it. I will happily give way to him if he wants to intervene. If he does not, let us give him a few more moments, Mr. Gale, and talk about new clause 3.

Roger Gale: Order. All that was strictly out of order. I was hoping that the Minister might be able to reply, but he was obviously caught on the hop and I do not think that it is fair to ask him to respond immediately. If he wishes to give an indication during his response to new clause 3, that will probably also be out of order, but I will accept it.

Bill Wiggin: Thank you, Mr. Gale.
Funnily enough, I suspect that new clause 3 is one of the most important parts of the Bill. I am sure that the Government would have wanted to introduce it, but as yet have not.
We are dealing with a new offence—failure to fulfil the duty of care. The new clause would ensure that anybody who fails in the duty of care receives some sort of statutory warning before they are prosecuted. The amendment has two purposes. First, it would give those in violation of their animal welfare obligations the opportunity to improve the welfare conditions of animals in their care prior to any proceedings going through the courts. In many cases that might prevent lengthy and costly legal actions and enable persons who were unaware that they were committing a violation of the Bill to change their ways without being immediately criminalised. If someone had unintentionally failed fully to provide for their animal’s welfare needs, it would be far better to give them the opportunity to rectify the situation than to pursue them through the courts.
Secondly, the amendment would ensure that only certain authorities could issue statutory improvement notices, and it would give them a responsibility to assist in fulfilling the requirements of an SIN. At present anyone can issue another person with a so-called improvement notice; for example, someone with no formal qualifications, knowledge or authority could do so. I could issue anyone with such a notice, telling them to change the way in which they treat their animal or risk being prosecuted. That is because I have a common-law right to prosecute others.
The amendment would not change or restrict that common-law right, but it would enhance the credibility of the practice of issuing improvement notices by empowering certain bodies to issue them as a statutory requirement. It would give those governmental bodies responsibility to go along with  those powers; as the bodies are either national or governmental, they are also democratically accountable.
On Second Reading, I pressed the Minister on written warnings and he stated:
“There is nothing to prevent the issuing of written warnings. We are simply keen not to dictate to the RSPCA and others that they should take that course.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 248.]
It is true that there is nothing to prevent anyone from issuing a written warning. However, there is nothing legally binding about such a warning and it could easily be ignored. As the RSPCA pointed out in a briefing note, in cases where its advice was ignored, most owners would have followed it if it had been backed up by the potential for legal proceedings.
On Second Reading, the Minister raised the issue of the Bill being designed to avoid prosecutions, reduce costs, prevent cruelty and promote welfare and he argued that a statutory improvement notice would be contradictory to that aim. I beg to disagree. The new clause is written in the spirit of the Bill; it will save time and costs and help individuals to improve animal welfare. It would ensure that improvement notices were issued by an appropriate authority and that there was a statutory obligation to fulfil that their requirements.
If there are arguments in favour of the RSPCA notices, they may be useful as rebuttals. At the moment, the RSPCA issues non-statutory improvement notices to animal keepers. Often these are issued in what might be perceived as a threatening or intimidating manner. Anyway, even if they are well-intentioned and justified, there is no requirement to comply. The statutory improvement notice proposed in the new clause would place a compliance obligation on the offender. It would be useful if the Government were to guarantee that the RSPCA or any other non-governmental organisation would not be empowered through future secondary legislation, especially under clause 10(2)(b), to issue improvement notices with statutory obligations. The RSPCA’s table of amendments and comments shows that it is in favour of the new clause in principle, but is concerned that it will create a two-tier system of RSPCA notices and statutory improvement notices.

2.7 pm

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Roger Gale: Order. Before we proceed, I gather that there is likely to be another vote within the next hour. I must remind the Committee that there is no injury time awarded for Divisions, because the end time of our proceedings is determined by the House.

Bill Wiggin: We shall be much quicker if the Government confirm that they are doing the research, as I think they said they wanted to, then we shall not  need to vote on new clause 5. I would give way if the Minister would just say, “Yes.” If he will not, I shall carry on with my lengthy but important speech.

Ben Bradshaw: We are looking at videos.

Bill Wiggin: I just hope that the Minister is looking at the right sort of videos. I can confirm that I shall not require a vote on new clause 5.
New clause 3 is very important, however. In the briefing, “RSPCA and the Welfare Offence”, the RSPCA hints that if the advice were backed up with greater legal strength, it would be less likely to be ignored. Moreover, given the fact that RSPCA inspectors have no statutory powers—we are told that they do not want any—and cannot issue notices that impose a statutory requirement on people, it would be sensible that only Government bodies had such powers. In addition, we should remember that RSPCA inspectors are not Government inspectors, and considering the confusion that it can cause, the new clause would clarify the law so that the public were aware that statutory improvement notices could be issued only by certain Government bodies and not charities.
There are concerns that the Minister is relying too much on the RSPCA to enforce the legislation, when Government bodies predominantly should prosecute under criminal law. The proposed statutory improvement notice in this new clause would enable the RSPCA and others, including individuals, to report suspected offenders to the appropriate authority, which with its expertise could check the allegations and, if they appeared to be true, issue the SIN.
We have heard how RSPCA inspectors visit premises on numerous occasions and that they are powerless to act even after 25 visits. The new clause would enable them to report the case to the appropriate authority, which, if it was of the same opinion as the inspectors, could immediately issue an SIN. That would speed up the animal’s recovery, which is what we all want.
On Second Reading the Minister said that if there was a serious welfare offence, the RSPCA might want to move straight to prosecution. If the amendment were accepted, nothing would stop them doing that, as that is its common-law right. A serious offence would fall under the cruelty offence in clause 4, not under the clause 8 welfare offence covered by the new clause. That is an important difference. It would be appropriate to give the power to the police, as they will be involved in the enforcement of the Bill, as well as to local authorities, the state veterinary service and the courts. Now that animal owners can be prosecuted under a far wider series of offences, we want to make sure that, in the first instance, they have the chance to improve the animal’s welfare.
If I dare, Mr. Gale, may I talk about my own chickens? Two days ago it was very cold; the water that they drink will have frozen over. While I am here debating with the other members of the Committee, my neighbour is responsible for making sure that the chickens have their water. He will pop round, break  the ice and make sure that they are healthy. If he did not go, a welfare offence would be committed. I would then be prosecuted, simply because I did not know that my neighbour had let those poor chickens down. It is far better to have a statutory improvement notice, at which point I deal with my neighbour and then find somebody who does turn up, or I find a better home for my chickens.
That is what is behind the new clause: if the warning order could be put in place, there would be no need to proceed to court. The evidence from the RSPCA is that issuing warning letters works: that is why it writes them and why I want to see the provision written into the Bill. I am more than happy to accept that the practicalities of the new clause and its drafting may not be perfect, but we have time between now and Report stage to hone it. I believe that such a move will also take place in Scotland, when it tackles the same problem. This is a well-meant new clause. I believe that it would make a vital improvement to the Bill, and I hope that, with all that in mind, the Government will consider it seriously and accept it.

James Paice: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, who spoke so well to the new clause.
I want first to emphasise what my hon. Friend said about Scotland. Just before the Division the Minister moved some amendments to bring the Bill into line with the Scottish legislation. It seems sensible that, in this context, this measure too should be put in place. The second point is the need to avoid unnecessary prosecution; my hon. Friend gave the example of his chickens. As I am sure all members of the Committee will be aware, many of the welfare offences that will arise under clause 8 are caused by ignorance and are by no means wilful. Sadly, many people who keep pet animals or birds do not know how to look after them properly. We hope that the codes of practice will reduce that problem, but ignorance is a fundamental issue. I am not sure that it is helpful to move to prosecution simply because of ignorance, when people will often be more than willing to put things right if they are required to do so.
It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend said, that an informal notice can be given, but that does not necessarily resolve all the problems. There should be an obligation to issue a statutory notice, and I endorse entirely his distinction between the welfare offence under clause 8 and the cruelty issue. If there is a serious, urgent issue that requires prosecution, I should think that it will fall under the cruelty offence, which should rightly move quickly to prosecution, because it will almost certainly be a matter not of ignorance but of wilfulness.
My final point by way of example, in a slightly lighter-hearted vein, relates to two press articles that appeared this week in my local paper, the Cambridge Evening News. Other hon. Members may have received it; I know that it has been circulated to one or two of  them. It relates to two individuals who are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), just outside my constituency. They were prosecuted for failing to look after Sally, a lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo and Sidney, an African grey parrot, who were suffering from feather damage and feather pecking. The constituents were cleared of this offence by magistrates in Cambridge, which is why I feel able to use it as an example. That took place on Monday.
An expert witness during the two-day trial suggested that the birds’ habit of plucking out their own feathers had been brought on by sexual frustration. He said that the hand-reared birds had probably become sexually attracted to humans—that might be a challenge even for the Liberal Democrats—after mistaking their owners for their parents, which led to extensive feather plucking. Magistrates cleared the pair of all charges and later the presiding magistrate made his decision, saying it was unreasonable to expect a second opinion when veterinary opinion had already been received.
That is a clear example of an unnecessary prosecution and the magistrates clearly felt that that was the case. The person involved had sought veterinary advice on the matter and was told that there was no cure for the condition. It is the sort of situation where a statutory improvement notice would have been an obvious course of action, rather than action involving such cost and distress. Those birds were confiscated last May. The owners had been without them for nine months, and all that cost and stress could have been avoided if an improvement notice had been served. That is a good example that supports the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.

David Drew: I am not sure how the new clause will operate. A statutory improvement notice has to be served in some way and must have some legal importance. The Minister sounds as if he has misgivings, but the idea that there should be a yellow card, as well as a red one, has merit. However, it is a question of the grounds on which the statutory improvement notice would be served. To have any meaning, the notice would either have to be served through the courts or be subsequently available to the courts if a prosecution were to arise because someone took no notice of it. Those are my misgivings.

Bill Wiggin: Although I am the author of the new clause and I believe in it passionately, I agree that there are fine-tuning details that would need to be tidied up. If a written warning were issued by an individual, would that be evidence in court, or should there be no private prosecutions without prior written warning of some sort? The minute one insists on a written warning for private prosecutions, one is in a very different legal area. That is a potential problem with the drafting, which I made clear in my speech. How would the hon. Gentleman feel if his constituents were consistently being prosecuted without warning, for minor offences under the codes of conduct?

David Drew: I would not want that, but I do want more regular prosecutions. The big problem that we want to deal with by means of the Bill is that too many people get away with animal cruelty because the RSPCA is far too hamstrung in the way it is currently able to pursue such cases.
I will listen to what the Minister has to say. Of the new clause, I say, “Good idea, but shame about the detail.” Perhaps the Government can help in that regard. Unless there is some statutory underpinning that the courts can use at the time or subsequently, it will not mean an awful lot.

Norman Baker: I have some sympathy with the intention of the new clause and I am not against the concept of the statutory improvement notice. It may well be appropriate under certain circumstances to have such notices as exist in other legislation relating to matters such as environmental health. It may be appropriate to have such a notice in place of a prosecution. I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster to that extent. Unfortunately, there are problems with the way in which the new clause is drafted. Subsection (1), for example, says that
“prior to any prosecutions taking place”
there shall be served a statutory improvement notice.

Bill Wiggin: Under section 8.

Norman Baker: Yes, but even so that limits the scope; there may be circumstances in which there is severe negligence that does not constitute cruelty, but that nevertheless justifies prosecution at the start date.

Bill Wiggin: That misunderstands what this is all about, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will reconsider. If there are severe welfare failings, that is cruelty and there will be the opportunity to prosecute immediately under the cruelty provisions. It cannot be a case of severe ignorance unless perhaps there is a swap of mice for hamsters, as the Minister suggested earlier, and the owner has no idea how to look after his new creatures. I do not believe that it is possible to fall into that trap.

Norman Baker: I disagree with that, because even severe negligence may not amount to cruelty, and it is difficult to prove such cases in the courts. If someone is driven to mount a prosecution and they wish to bring it right away, they may have to use a cruelty offence because there is no alternative. Therefore, the prosecution may fail in the courts. The Crown Prosecution Service may have the same conundrum with someone who is charged with dangerous driving, or driving without due care and attention: the CPS may go for a lesser offence because there is more certainty of a successful prosecution. There is inflexibility in the new clause that is unhelpful.
As a matter of justice and fairness, any such statutory improvement notice would, by definition, have to carry a right of appeal, because it would be contrary to natural justice for there not to be such a right of appeal. A right of appeal would further elongate matters and, in the meantime, the concern might continue as to how the animal is treated.
So there are significant objections to the new clause as drafted. In addition, I think its proposals are more threatening, because a letter from the RSPCA, or whomever, may be regarded by the recipient as friendly and helpful, whereas a statutory improvement notice, with all its legal jargon, is likely to be less helpful and more threatening. It may have the opposite effect to that intended. There is also the bureaucratic requirement for the RSPCA to bring in someone else to serve the notice, whereas a letter can be written by the RSPCA itself.
I am not unsympathetic to the idea of a notice; it may have a place in the regime, but I do not think that it has a place in the regime as set out in the new clause.

Ben Bradshaw: I shall not repeat everything that the hon. Member for Lewes has said, because I agree with him absolutely. As I indicated in the discussion on clause 10, we are giving further consideration to the potential role of improvement notices, but he has put his finger on some particular problems with the wording of the new clause, in that it would make such notices compulsory in the case of a welfare offence, which may not be appropriate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also asked about the practicality of this. Members may be interested to know that, under the existing system, the RSPCA uses improvement letters, or warnings as it were, which do not have any statutory backing. Last year, in its eastern region, it issued 257 improvement notices, of which 240 led to improvement in the welfare of the animal, without any statutory backing or bureaucracy of the type that has been mentioned. There were only 17 instances in which the notices were not acted upon.
So we are still considering the point; I do not think the hon. Member for Leominster has got it quite right, and we may not have got it quite right either, but I do not want to create a system that is more bureaucratic and inflexible, and two-tier, in the way that the new clause would.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for what the Minister says, because what is wrong with the Bill is that we are allowing, or empowering, or encouraging—I do not particularly want to fight over which—a charity to do what, in any sector other than the animals sector, would be done by the police. The minute we went down that road we were bound to have problems about warning people. The problem is: who issues the letter warning to people to buck up and improve their animal welfare? Is it the charity, or a Government-empowered authority? That is why the new clause is so difficult, but that difficulty does not take away its importance.
If a horse rider whips his horse and his neighbour says, “He was whipping his horse far more than he should have done,” even if he is within the Jockey Club’s guidelines, he needs to be warned before being given a summons to court. He may then choose not to take a whip with him when he rides his horse, or he may choose to ensure that his neighbour is not responsible for the amount of water that his chickens have. That would put him back in charge of his  animals, as he ought to be, which is why the duty of care is so important. I suggest that the Government reconsider the matter.
Perhaps my drafting is not perfect. Amending the new clause to state:
“Prior to any prosecutions taking place under section 8, the appropriate national authority”
 may—instead of “shall”—
“issue a person violating section 8 with a Statutory Improvement Notice”
would perhaps give the Government a little more flexibility. We know from the RSPCA that statutory improvement notices work. It is tremendous that only 17 people ignored them. However, we cannot guarantee that the RSPCA will continue to issue the notices; that is not in the Bill. The people running the RSPCA now may not be doing so in 10 years’ time. We have no more than a verbal promise, so we need to ensure that the Bill makes proper provision.

Norman Baker: I have some difficulty with that argument. Surely if the new clause were accepted, there would be no guarantee that a national authority would pursue the improvement notices. The authority may itself be negligent.

Bill Wiggin: I am not sure that I understand the whole of that point, but what we are trying to achieve is a uniform approach at a time when powers are being split. The RSPCA will obviously want to continue issuing the letters because they are a good, effective and efficient means of proceeding. However, other bodies may decide that they want to pursue animal welfare prosecutions under section 8. Such bodies have not necessarily yet come forward, and they may not do so for five or 10 years. But, as it is 95 years since we have had a Bill of this nature, we should ensure that the public are protected from themselves, to some extent, and that their animals are also protected.

David Drew: My impression is that many people who have received the letters in question believe that the RSPCA has some legal authority on the matter, and are deeply worried that they will subsequently be pursued. My concern is what happens if they are not. The inability to bring prosecutions against the 78 people who have ignored the notices is at the root of the problem. That is why I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, although 17 people have ignored the notices, not 78.
The other way to deal with the issue would be to change the right of individuals to bring prosecutions. That is a different challenge for the Government from that of amending the Bill, and I think that it is a Home Office matter. It would be a hugely problematic change to introduce. Giving a written warning before bringing a private prosecution would be helpful so that anybody could issue anybody else with a warning  before prosecuting them. That would be much better for our society, but it is not on the menu of what we can do today.
I am glad that the Minister said that he will examine the issue. I do not think that there are further points to be made, or that it would be helpful to press the new clause to a Division. We reserve the right to bring the issue back on Report, by which time I hope that we and the Government will have made some progress on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 - UK animal welfare enforcement database

‘(1)The Secretary of State may, by regulation, establish a UK Animal Welfare Enforcement Database to assist the enforcement of this Act.
(2)A UK Animal Welfare Enforcement Database established under this section shall contain only the following information—
(a)details relating exclusively to registration and licensing schemes under section 11,
(b)details relating to persons convicted under this Act, and
(c)details of the relevant experts and specialists that those persons responsible for the enforcement of this Act may wish to consult.
(3)The details contained within subsection (2)(a) and subsection (2)(b) shall only be amended by and accessible to—
(a)the police,
(b)the courts,
(c)local authorities,
(d)the Secretary of State,
(e)the Crown Prosecution Service,
(f)in Scotland, the Crown Office, and
(g)in Northern Ireland, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
(4)Those persons who have access under subsection (3) shall not disclose such information to any persons during the course of an investigation other than those under subsection (3) that may be necessary to disclose to during the course of such an investigation.
(5)The UK Animal Welfare Enforcement Database shall conform with all the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998.
(6)Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall seek to consult publicly with all interested parties and make available the details of the evidence given.
(7)After the consultation procedure in subsection (6), the UK Animal Welfare Enforcement Database shall not be established unless a draft of the instrument containing the provisions for establishing the UK Animal Welfare Enforcement Database has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.—[Bill Wiggin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is another mystery. The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to establish a UK animal welfare enforcement database. I am sure that we can all see the logic of having various pieces of information stored centrally, and I note that paragraphs 42 to 45 of the Bill’s regulatory impact assessment suggest that there would be merit in  establishing such a database. I am therefore disappointed that the Government have decided not to make provision in the Bill for a database.
Although I understand that clause 10 makes provision
“to facilitate or improve co-ordination in relation to the carrying out by different persons of functions relating to the welfare of animals”,
the possibility of a database being established is far too important to depend on that rather ambiguous phrasing. When we consider the human rights implications, particularly for the right to privacy, we see that the matter should be included in the Bill. Perhaps it is not included because the Secretary of State has signed the human rights statement; nevertheless, it should be.
I am also concerned that information could be mishandled or that non-governmental organisations could receive extra powers or some form of privileged access. That would, of course, fly in the face of all the assurances that the Government have given us about the Bill not empowering any NGO.

Norman Baker: I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he agree that it might also be helpful if police forces had standards of practice to deal with such matters? For example, not every force has a police liaison officer—some do and some do not. Furthermore, as I know from having spoken to the police force in Sussex, it is sometimes difficult to get information about animal welfare offences because they are not always recorded in a way that would help the database that we both want established.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; people do things differently. In fact, I made the point on Second Reading not only about police forces but about local authorities. If forces do not have sufficient funding—I have never met a police force that felt that it was flush with cash, except perhaps the Met—there is often a problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.The information will be limited to details of licensing, registration, convictions, and experts.

Justine Greening: I must correct my hon. Friend: the Met is not flush with cash. In fact, Putney police station is open for just two hours a day because there is nobody to man the front desk.

Bill Wiggin: I am not going to fight my hon. Friend; she is a very assiduous constituency MP, but she should come and see what is going on out in the sticks. She would be very welcome. However, should she decide to commit a crime after half-past 10 at night in Ledbury, she would find it difficult to get arrested.

Justine Greening: I will not try.

Norman Baker: What sort of crime was the hon. Gentleman thinking about?

Bill Wiggin: The thought of my hon. Friend committing a crime is too much even for me to contemplate.
Under the proposals, nothing would prevent the sharing of the details of experts, which would be an important tool in investigations, providing access to anyone whom the Secretary of State felt needed that information. The database would be a useful reference tool for local authorities or the police seeking certain expertise, as the regulatory impact assessment itself states. Only those Government bodies with the authority to check on the people concerned would be granted access to personal details concerning licensing, registration and convictions. We have been reassured that the enforcement of licensing and registration under clause 11 will not be outsourced to NGOs, so the new clause is in keeping with the Government’s promise.
It will be the duty of the Government to check up on the people convicted under the Bill, not the duty of other groups or individuals who may seek to pursue offenders. We are already too aware of what some animal rights extremist groups get up to, and if they had access to details of offenders, they could do them harm. That is another reason why we need statutory restrictions on such information.
On a technical point, the new clause will ensure that if the Secretary of State decides to establish the database—I hope that she will—the fine details will be effectively and intensively discussed, consulted upon and scrutinised by Parliament. The new clause would therefore provide for the establishment of the database, but also safeguard human rights.
I would like some cast-iron guarantees from the Minister. Will he ensure that if the database is established, only Government organisations will have access to personal details and that NGOs will not be allowed special status? For instance, if the RSPCA is allowed access, with the proviso that it will not get extra powers, any member of the public could also have access. Will the Minister also guarantee that those suspected but not actually convicted of an offence will not be placed on the database and that peoples’ privacy will be protected from other people and organisations targeting them? Information on the sex offenders database is not in the public domain for those reasons. I hope that my sensible suggestions, which are also in the regulatory impact assessment, are taken on board. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Ben Bradshaw: The database is intended mainly to be an aid to the effective enforcement of the measures in the Bill. It would therefore be likely to include information about convictions, disqualifications and licences. Most members of the Committee will agree that that is long overdue and would help to tackle animal cruelty, breaches of animal welfare and people who try to evade their history of offending. This is a common informers Bill, so one could envisage examples in which organisations or individuals who take out a prosecution would want access to previous conviction records. That would be allowed under the Data Protection Act 1998 only if the data were being  used for the purpose for which those people had access. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that although there may be a need for people to have access, there would be no privileged access for particular groups or individuals. Access would have to be carefully policed and controlled and it might be necessary, but the 1998 Act would provide safeguards.

Bill Wiggin: Did the Minister say that the database was going to happen or not? At the moment, the only reference to it is in the regulatory impact assessment. It is not in the Bill, and there is no provision for it.

Ben Bradshaw: We intend to introduce the database under secondary legislation, but we must give the matter some thought. There will be a consultation period, which the secondary legislation process will allow, and an affirmative resolution.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7 - Entry for purposes of arrest

‘In section 17(1)(c) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (power of constable to enter and search premises for purpose of arresting a person for offence under specified enactments), at end insert—
“(v)any of sections 4 to 7 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (offences relating to the prevention of harm to animals);”.’.—[Mr. Bradshaw.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10 - Greyhounds

‘The appropriate national authority shall make regulations under section 10 to introduce licensing of all racing greyhound tracks within two years of the day on which this Act is passed.’. —[Mr. Hollobone.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hollobone: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I move the new clause because the badly needed reform of the greyhound industry is not proceeding as the Government say they would like. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a requirement that within two years of the implementation of this legislation, regulations would be made under its terms to introduce the licensing of all racing greyhounds in the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members may not be particularly interested in greyhounds. They may not have a greyhound racing track in their constituency and they may not know  much about them, so the issue may not be of much concern to them. However, greyhound racing touches every constituency in the land, because most of the money bet on it is done through the average high street bookmaker, and most of the bets placed are on races that take place in between horse races.
In every constituency in the country, constituents bet money on greyhound racing. There is nothing wrong with that; it is a well established sport. However, it is essentially part of the gambling industry. The gambling industry uses and—all too often, sadly—abuses greyhounds.
The Government recognise the need for the reform of greyhound racing. They favour a voluntary approach, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but the problem is that that approach is not delivering improvements in greyhound welfare. I hope that all hon. Members want those improvements to be introduced—hence, my new clause.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) spoke eloquently about greyhound racing during an Adjournment debate in June 2004. There is widespread cross-party support for tightening the legislation, and I hope that that is reflected in Committee today. There are about 30,000 greyhounds racing at any one time in the United Kingdom, and their average racing life is three years. Therefore, about 10,000 greyhounds a year are retired from the sport. About 2,500 are re-homed, but no one quite knows what happens to the other 7,500 every year. One effect of the new clause would be that the industry is licensed and proper re-homing is introduced for greyhounds.
There are many reputable greyhound racing tracks, but there are about 20 independent tracks in this country that do not form part of most of the industry, which is voluntarily regulated. There is precious little sign that those tracks are making much progress towards coming on board.
The key welfare concerns faced by racing greyhounds include over-breeding, being raced when not fit, injury and death caused by inappropriate track surfaces and design, and kennelling conditions at tracks and trainers’ premises. Treatment on retirement, as I have said, is of particular concern.
The Government have proposed monitoring the industry’s reforms and will consider what further regulation is necessary. The Minister was kind enough to confirm that on Second Reading. The regulatory impact assessment states that any regulations to be introduced under the Bill will be brought in and enforced in 2008–09. My contention, and that of the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Dogs Trust, is that that is too long. We must say in the Bill that licensing is needed within two years. The Government agreed with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report that arguments for bringing forward the time scale for regulation were strong and that they would consider doing so.
I believe that higher welfare standards would be ensured by the introduction of a set of national  standards. They would ensure welfare to the same standard at all tracks, enforcement of those standards, accountability of the enforcement system and the requirement that euthanasia is undertaken on welfare grounds only on the advice of a veterinary surgeon. Sadly, all too often no qualified vets are available at some greyhound racing tracks. An independent vet should attend all greyhound race meetings and trials to certify the fitness of racing dogs and assess track conditions for wear and tear. Any dog entering the industry should be permanently identified, preferably by microchipping. Track layout should be considered by a licensing body before a licence is granted and when it is renewed. A member of staff at each track should be responsible for track layout, maintenance and the welfare of the greyhounds. Tracks should ensure that trainers have a current licence, and guidelines must be established on transportation.
The short racing life of greyhounds means that many younger dogs are bred to replace them. Tracks should be encouraged to hold more graded races for older and/or slower dogs to prevent a dog being less economical on retirement. Owners should be made to account for the fate of a greyhound on retirement to reduce abandonment and killings. More funding is necessary to care for retired greyhounds, and the industry should bear significant responsibility for that. Every year bookmakers make millions of pounds on greyhound racing, so they should also be obliged to contribute far more to the funding than they do at present. Owners should contribute to a retirement fund for their dogs, which could also be used for emergency treatment if the dog is injured and the owner is unable to pay for it.
Animal welfare Bills do not come around very often. This is the first comprehensive one for the best part of 100 years. I very much hope that the Committee will seize this opportunity to say in the Bill that they want to see the industry fully licensed within two years.

Ben Bradshaw: Many people will have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. We all want to see a high standard of welfare at greyhound tracks and improvements. However, I am not convinced by the argument that greyhound racing uniquely should have a place in the Bill, nor do I believe that he was as fair as he might have been about some of the improvements that have been made in recent years and are being made. I believe that the new regime at the organisation that oversees racing is committed to high welfare standards.
One principle that the Government have tried to stress throughout the Bill, which I think would be shared by his party if not by the hon. Gentleman as an individual, is that, where possible, regulation should be self-regulation, as long as we can be satisfied that it works. Livery yards, for example, could be regulated and inspected by some of the horse welfare organisations, because they have expertise in that area.  We are keen to see welfare improvements at the tracks and to give self-regulation a chance, but I have made it clear on many occasions, and I am happy to do so again today, that if we are not satisfied that self-regulation is delivering the welfare improvements that we seek, we shall not hesitate to regulate.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that, although there have been improvements at the tracks under the control of the National Greyhound Racing Club, the same has not been true of some independent tracks? Therefore, it is not enough to rely on the code of practice if it is implemented for only some tracks.

Ben Bradshaw: I accept that. We expect all greyhound tracks to meet the welfare standards of the best. If they do not, we may have to consider regulation. However, I would be reluctant in the Bill to bind this or a future Government to do that within a particular time frame, given the pressure that other hon. Members have put me under to bring various bits of regulation forward as fast as possible. The case has not been made to single out greyhound racing. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as soon as the Bill is passed, the welfare and cruelty offences will apply to greyhound tracks, and that should make an immediate improvement in welfare at those tracks.

3.2 pm

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Philip Hollobone: This is a serious issue that I am afraid the Government are not being robust enough in addressing. Parliament has talked about this issue over many years. Almost 15 years ago, the Home Affairs Committee recommended lots of changes to independent tracks, but, effectively very little has happened in that time. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee also recommended that the Government take a serious look at the industry. I appreciate why the Minister says that he wants to give the industry time, but, from my perspective, it has had enough time.
This is a wonderful opportunity to say to the industry, “We want you to introduce these improvements and to do so within two years.” That is not an unreasonable time scale. The industry could fund the changes, because hundreds of millions of pounds are made by bookmakers and their clients who bet on greyhound racing. It would also provide the Minister with a quick win as far as animal welfare is concerned. Before we come back for the next election, I would be proud to stand up and praise him for the changes brought about in the greyhound industry as a result of the measures introduced in the Bill. We could have a family-friendly, extremely popular, animal welfare-led greyhound industry that would be a credit  to this country and the world. I hope that the Government will not miss this opportunity and I would like to put the matter to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

NOES

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 14 - Snares

‘(1)Section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (“the 1981 Act”) is amended.
(2)In subsection (1)(a)—
(a)after “position” insert “or otherwise uses”;
(b)the words “self-locking” are repealed;
(c)the words from “which” to the end of the paragraph are repealed.
(3)In subsection (1)(b), the words from the second “any” to “aforesaid,” are repealed.
(4)In subsection (2)(a), for the words “or snare” substitute “(but not a snare)”.
(5)After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A)Subject to the provisions of this Part, any person who—
(a)manufactures;
(b)is in possession of; or
(c)supplies, or offers or exposes for supply, whether by way of sale or otherwise,
a snare shall be guilty of an offence.”.
(6)Subsection (3) is repealed.
(7)In section 16(3) of the 1981 Act, after “11(1)” insert “(b), (c) and (except so far as relating to paragraph (a)) (d).”.’.—[Mr. Drew.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Drew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to move the new clause, but I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has tabled new clause 15, so I shall be rapid. However, as this is probably the last time that I shall speak, I should like to thank you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chairman Mrs. Humble, the Government, the Opposition and particularly my hon. Friend the Whip for allowing Back Benchers to have a voice, if not a vote—we shall wait for another day—on the new clauses. The Minister has listened carefully on a number of issues and, notwithstanding the previous  Division, when some of us would have preferred to vote with our hearts, there is a reason why we shall vote with the Government.

Roger Gale: Order. That has nothing whatever to do with the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get on with it.

David Drew: I will get on with it. That was the nice bit; now for the nasty bit.
I abhor snares: they are a dreadful way of capturing animals. By chance, I was with a group of farmers last Friday and they concurred. They hated snares and thought that they were the worst possible way to capture animals. Snares are not humane and if there were any alternative methods of dealing with the problem—I say “if”, but I seek guidance from the Minister—they would be used.
In speaking to the new clause, I make no apology to the League Against Cruel Sports or Naturewatch, both of which have written to me to say that they feel as strongly as I do. Time is against us, so I will not go through a lot of detailed arguments, but I will say that the debate is very current. Everyone knows that because, as those of us who face the dreadful problem of bovine TB are aware, if the Government agree to a greater culling policy, which is not my preferred choice, they are seriously considering using snares for that purpose.
We are presumably talking about pets being the major beneficiaries of the Bill, because there are other means of protecting wild animals. However, farmers do not like snares for the simple reason that any animal can get caught in one. Snares are not discriminatory; they are cruel. The reply that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), made it clear that the Department have already put in place a code of practice. I shall look at the code, but I would like to think that we would go further. It is interesting that the Department also conducted further research to look for a more humane snare. The code of practice cannot be sufficient if, at the same time, we are looking for a more humane way of using snares.
I have mentioned suffering. Voluntary codes do not work—the Government already have a voluntary code but they are still conducting research. As I said, snares are indiscriminate. That is something that we shall face as the issue recurs and it is something on which we need to have a view here, even if we do not have the opportunity to deal with it—I am sure that the Minister will say that this is not the appropriate place.
Finally, snares are deeply unpopular, not only with farmers but with the public. In a MORI poll of 2,053 respondents in 2003, some 79 per cent. of the population—if that figure is meaningful—were against the use of the snares. That is substantial, but we do not need to rely on the general public; we can ask hon. Members. Up until 16 January, 222 hon. Members had signed an early-day motion standing in my name. If one takes out Front Benchers—the hon. Member for Leominster screws his face up at that—that is a substantial number.
People do not like snares. They want to know that the Government are considering at least an alternative, if not a complete ban. I believe that snares should be banned. We are behind other parts of Europe and other parts of the world in that regard. We have already had a debate about the reality as compared with what is said to be the reality, but the fact is that other parts of Europe do not use snares—they do not encourage the use of snares.

James Paice: I just want to put one question to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the points that he is making and I accept that snares are unpopular. If set in accordance with the code, a snare is not particularly indiscriminate, and if a properly set snare does catch an animal of a non-target species, it can be released. However, the main point that I want to put to him is that the House decided—rightly or wrongly, depending on people’s views—to ban fox hunting. That leaves only a small number of ways to control foxes. Lamping is the one frequently discussed, but there is also snaring and live trapping. Live trapping is immensely difficult, as anyone who tries to catch rural foxes by that method finds. That only leaves snaring. In many areas of the country, lamping with a high-powered rifle is unsafe. That is particularly so near built-up areas. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee how he believes foxes could be controlled in such areas if people could not use a rifle and if he was successful in banning snares.

David Drew: That is a useful intervention. My answer is that lamping and trapping should be used, because they are more humane and better methods. There is a lot of argument about efficiency. We have the voluntary code, but I put it to the Minister that it would be useful to see the evidence behind the evolution of the policy on this matter. The Government have a policy; they have to have a policy in recognition of the problems with bovine TB. I am asking the Government to be completely clear and to say what they are doing, how they are doing and what plans they have if they intend to use snares. My position is clear—I do not agree with snares—but there should be accountability, and the Bill provides an opportunity in that regard. This is not an area in which things can easily be licensed, which is my problem.
I agree with what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said in his intervention, but the problem is that, for every person who knows how to set a snare, there are many others who do not. They set illegal snares and are happy to see animals suffer. I say that because they must know if they put down such a snare that the chances are that an animal will be caught in it, regardless of whether it is the one that they intended to catch or one that is indiscriminately caught. That is the problem. Snaring is not a science; it is something that people do because they think that it is an effective means of catching an animal. I question that.
I am glad to be able to propose the new clause. I am sure that the debate will not go away but will take place again on Report. I would like to know from the  Minister what the Government are doing, what they plan to do and, at the very least—to try to mitigate my worries—what additional controls they will impose so that we do not have snaring taking place as it does, which is completely unacceptable in this day and age.

Ben Bradshaw: I have to disappoint my hon. Friend: the Government do not plan to ban snares. I am sure he accepts that what most people consider to be snares—self-locking snares—are already illegal. We do not intend to ban snares because wildlife in the countryside needs to be managed and pests need to be controlled. He cites public opinion surveys. I have to tell him that many people who respond to such surveys just do not like the idea that animals need to be managed and pests sometimes need to be controlled. I suspect that the surveys he cited reflect that and that if those people were asked whether they would rather the animals be poisoned or another, less humane means of dispatch used, they would be even more unhappy. If they had a greater understanding of the need to control some pests, they might respond in a slightly more nuanced way.
My hon. Friend asked what the Government were doing. As he acknowledged, we have just published a good, updated code of practice, which applies to snares. Some of the cases he cited would be in breach of the code and therefore prosecutable. He also cited an answer given to a question he put to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, who is responsible for this area, which laid out in some detail what the Government are doing. It mentioned the research that we are doing into restraints in the event that they need to be used in relation to bovine TB.
I would not want to close that door because, if a decision is made on such matters, the alternatives may be less attractive to my hon. Friend and those who care about animal welfare. Given what the Government are doing, the fact that we take care constantly to determine how updating can be made as welfare-friendly as possible, and that there is a need to control pests, I ask him not to press the motion.

David Drew: I listened very carefully to the Minister; obviously I am not at one with my Front-Bench colleagues on the matter. It is not appropriate to press the motion to a vote now, but I shall reintroduce it on Report. I am sure that others feel as strongly as I do about it. Snares are something that we can do without in the 21st century. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15 - Welfare of gamebird laying stock

‘(1)The person responsible for an animal to which this section applies commits an offence if the animal is kept otherwise than in accordance with this section.
(2)An enclosure in which any pheasant is kept for the purpose of producing eggs must be of a kind which provides a minimum of one square metre of floor surface area per bird.
(3)Pheasants shall only be kept in a laying pen described in subsection (2) for up to a maximum of six months in any one year.
(4)After the laying period, pheasants which are not released into the wild must be moved to a separate enclosure which provides a minimum floor surface area of two square metres per bird.
(5)An enclosure in which any partridge is kept for the purpose of producing eggs must—
(a)be of a kind traditionally used for the keeping of partridges (commonly known as a partridge box), and
(b)provide a floor surface area of no less than 0.55 square metres per bird.
(6)Partridges shall only be kept in a box as described in subsection (5) for a maximum of six months in any one year.
(7)After the laying period, partridges which are not released into the wild must be moved to a separate enclosure which provides a minimum floor surface area of one square metre per bird.’.—[Paddy Tipping.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Paddy Tipping: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased and somewhat relieved to have the opportunity to speak to this new clause. The issue has attracted a great deal of interest in the shooting press recently. I am delighted that the RSPCA and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation have worked together on the new clause. It has a good deal of, but not universal, support.
There is growing concern in this country about the use of intensive rearing practices and battery cages. The evidence relating to poultry suggests that overcrowding of birds can lead to stress and aggressive behaviour. That is one issue, but there is a wider issue for the shooting industry, which promotes its product as being free, natural and a valuable food source. That contrasts sharply with intensive rearing practices.
The new clause makes a stab at laying down minimum cage spaces: different ones for pheasant and partridge. I am not confident that the areas specified are the right size. The League Against Cruel Sports and Animal Aid support the general thrust of the new clause but argue that greater space is necessary. It is absolutely clear that we need greater research into the issue. I have had a helpful letter from the Game Conservancy Trust, an excellent body that does very valuable work. It suggests that it would like to be involved in research on the matter and also argues for the involvement of the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
I am pretty confident that the Minister will say that a code of practice will be introduced. I want to inform the debate on that code of practice and ask the Minister whether, in the run-up to the publication of the code, the necessary research can be carried out. One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is that it has proved a vehicle by which people with different views and interests have come together and begun a debate. Although there are important issues in the Bill, and to come in regulation, its true strength is that it will prove to be a catalyst and focus for debate, bringing together bodies that have traditionally held different views. I welcome it.

James Paice: I should emphasise, as some hon. Members know, that I am not only a long-standing member of the BASC but a member of the Game Conservancy Trust council. Both positions are non-pecuniary, but I wanted to make that clear in the interests of transparency.
As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, there has been a lot of discussion about these issues for the past year or two, stemming from a video taken by Animal Aid of one or two game farms in the UK. It is important to emphasise that those cages were in conflict with the game farmers’ own code of practice, which has been published. If the Government were later to adopt the Game Farmers Association’s voluntary code as the statutory code, the farmers in the video who were using those cages would be open to prosecution under clause 8.

Shona McIsaac: Of the game farms in this country, how many are estimated to be using cages that could be illegal?

James Paice: For the benefit of the hon. Lady, I can say that it is estimated to be about six. I emphasise that the Game Farmers Association does not necessarily support this system, but it does exist. It has therefore developed its own code, which involves a system of enriched cages. That is why I said that the cages in the video would have been outwith the code.
Secondly, the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Sherwood—he and I agree on many of these matters, but I take slight issue with him on this—refers to the figures. He accepted that he does not know whether they are correct. They are figures that I am afraid the BASC has distorted in its campaign, because they relate to the square meterage for pens and are figures that the Game Conservancy Trust put forward some 30 years ago for a different rearing system for pheasants. That was for pens on the ground.
Raised cages, where the birds are on a wire floor, are a very different housing system, because clearly the birds will not be in mud or in their own faeces, so the issue of square meterage is completely different. The BASC was wrong only in translating a recommendation for an open pen on the ground to a cage. The second aspect of that, as I said, is that the figures are 30 years old and, frankly, were not based on much science at the time. They were the general practice and were reckoned to be all right, but that was a long while ago and it is time they were updated.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Game Conservancy Trust has written to the Government asking that this matter be referred to the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Incidentally, the Game Farmers Association has written direct to FAWC asking it to consider the issue. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that at this stage the Minister will say that, when he comes to develop a code, he will work with the whole shooting industry—not just with the BASC, which on this issue is on its own—and will make a commitment today to refer the matter to FAWC. When the statutory regulations are made we will then all be able to see independent advice from those appointed to  look at this issue, so that we can reach a conclusion on the basis of up-to-date scientific knowledge. I believe that all the rural community would support that.
I emphasise that we are talking about laying birds, not about rearing birds. I personally do not like the idea of keeping the latter in cages for the reason mentioned by the hon. Member for Sherwood—I believe that the shooting community should work more closely to nature than that—but we should base our decisions on expert information and scientific research. If the Minister can assure us today that he will refer the matter to FAWC, I will be very pleased.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government are sympathetic to the amendment’s purposes and share the concerns expressed over the use of barren, raised cages. I have said on the record several times myself that most people find it difficult to understand that a practice that we have banned for poultry we still allow for game birds.
I will certainly reflect on the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has just made. As game birds are not considered to be farmed animals, I ask myself whether the matter would be within FAWC’s remit. I have just been advised that it is a borderline matter, but that does not mean that I should not discuss with FAWC whether it could take the matter into its remit. I should like the codes to be based on the best possible scientific advice. If that requires further research, the commissioning of research or drawing on other countries’ research, I should be happy to facilitate that.

James Paice: I suggest to the Minister that there is probably enough ministerial discretion for FAWC to look into the matter. This may sound like special pleading; it is not meant to. If he comes to the conclusion that FAWC cannot consider it, he might consider formally requesting the Game Conservancy Trust, which is widely accepted to be an expert in that field, to carry out the research. It has not done so for more than 30 years, and we need that scientific evidence.

Ben Bradshaw: I appreciate that, and there is one other thing that hon. Members may wish to consider: game birds are not farmed animals, so they are not subject to EU legislation. I am concerned to try to avoid an uneven playing field in the EU, whereby we ban a practice or introduce a regulation in this country which stops a practice that continues on the continent, allowing the cheaper breeding and export of young birds that could damage our game-rearing industry. We have formally asked the Commission to look into that whole area, so that we can try to ensure that whatever happens, it happens on an EU-wide basis. Following those comments, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood will not press the motion.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and for the helpful comments from the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. The Minister is right to argue that an EU dimension is needed. One driver for such cages is imports from  France, where the system is used. I am also keen to stress that further research is needed, and that science should inform a code of practice. The Minister has picked up on that point.
There is a case for FAWC considering the matter. The Minister has influence over it, and I hope that he will talk to it and others with expertise in the area. The shooting industry and animal welfare organisations jointly want to make progress, and the Minister has made it clear that he wants to make progress, too. Given that, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Ben Bradshaw: I said to the Committee at the beginning of our sittings that I was a Standing Committee virgin, so I hope that I have not got this wrong; however, I think it falls to me to offer some formal thanks at the end of our sittings. Thanks first to you, Mr. Gale, for the excellent way in which you have chaired and kept us moving along nicely, so that we should just hit our deadline. Many thanks also to your fellow Chair, Mrs. Humble, to the Hansard note takers, to my officials, who work very hard, to the Front-Bench spokesmen from the Opposition parties and to all members of the Committee.
It has been a constructive and pleasurable initiation—for me anyway. I thank the people in the Public Gallery, too, some of whom have sat through almost as much of this Committee as we have, if not all of it. It has been a great pleasure, and we look forward to debating the Bill on Report.

Bill Wiggin: May I add my comments to those of the Minister? It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. You have gone the extra mile to ensure that the Committee has done its job properly and effectively. It has been a pleasure to serve under Mrs. Humble, too, although she did dock—to use a term—one of my interventions early on. Apart from that, she has done a fantastic job, and I am sure that she was absolutely right to dock me.
This Committee has been very important. I have done many Bills, and it is most helpful when the Minister takes seriously the efforts to which all Committee members go to ensure that their amendments are helpful, constructive, and constructed in a way that is both useful to the Government and makes sense. I am grateful for the fact that when I asked the Minister on Second Reading not to become entrenched, he did not become so. He took all our amendments seriously and he also agreed to reconsider a lot of difficult areas, for which I am most grateful.
It is not much fun tabling 100 amendments and then having to withdraw them one by one. Everybody will have gone through that at some stage. It has been helpful to have a Minister who is prepared to listen and to go away and reconsider matters, but who has also been extremely firm in his decision making. He must be congratulated on that. I know that this is his first  Committee in this role and I look forward to serving opposite him in future if the opportunity arises. He has done a good job, but he has a lot of work still to do. That just leaves me to point to the Whip and say, “Look how much time we are going to need on Report, because there are an awful lot of important issues that we need to discuss.”

Shona McIsaac: There should be two days.

Bill Wiggin: At least.
I also want to thank all my colleagues on the Opposition Benches for their efforts. They have fought a valiant fight, whether it be for greyhounds or for any other facet of the Bill. I am most grateful for their support. As a Committee, we have done exactly what we are meant to do. We have considered every ounce of detail in the Bill and done our best to improve it. We have made some progress in some areas. I congratulate the Minister on his first Bill and thank the Chairs and all the other people, from the Clerk to the police, who have worked so hard to make this the best possible Bill for animal welfare.

Norman Baker: I heard mention of two days for the Report stage—and that is just for the hon. Member for Cleethorpes. I look forward to a full allocation of time on that occasion.
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. It is always helpful to have somebody in the Chair who understands the issues and who chairs sittings well. You have done that and it has been immensely helpful. I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for  Leominster for the helpful way in which they have undertaken their duties. It helped that there was a common purpose across the Committee: we all had the same objective in the end. We might have disagreed on how to get there, but we all wanted the same end, which has been useful.
It has been a pleasure to serve on a Committee in which, almost for the first time, Government Back Benchers have made major and significant contributions. Sometimes that does not happen. The fact that it happened on this occasion was helpful and made the discussions more worth while. It is a pity that we have not had the votes from Government Members, but we have had the arguments and I look forward to their being followed through on Report.

Roger Gale: Happily none of those comments is a matter for the Chair. I express my appreciation, on my own behalf and that of Mrs. Humble, to the Committee for the courtesy and good humour with which matters have been conducted. I often feel that it is a shame that people outside this place see the bear garden that is the Chamber on occasions and few people see the real work being done in Committees such as this. Thank you to each and every member of the Committee and my congratulations to the Minister on his first Bill. Thanks also to those hon. Members who have been serving on a Bill Committee for the first time. I thank the staff and Officers of the House, without whom we could not possibly do the job that we are required to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twelve minutes to Four o’clock.